Why Won't God Heal Amputees? and God is Imaginary are two websites that have sparked considerable interest in the atheist and theist communities. Believers are pointed toward those sites in real life and on web forums. They are considered, at least by atheists, to be bulletproof refutations of the Christian faith.

But are they?

Those two sites, allegedly authored by Marshall Brain of How Stuff Works fame, are riddled with basic errors of theology. This website attempts to demonstrate the errors prevalent in each of the so-called "proofs" of the non-existence of God.

This site is not attempting to prove that God exists. Rather, it is exposing the errors and bad argumentation of God is Imaginary. In this site's previous incarnation as a blog, many commenters made the error that I am attempting to positively affirm God's existence. I am not; I am merely trying to argue that God is Imaginary doesn't do a thing to disprove God.

TRY Praying

Let’s think carefully about proof #1 and see if succeeds in showing that god is imaginary. If it does, that’s big news; we’d have found out something very interesting. We may express proof #1 succinctly as follows:

?Premise 1: According to the Bible, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it will be. ?Premise 2: But, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it won’t be cured. ?Therefore: The God of the Bible is imaginary. Let’s start by thinking about the logic of this argument. Suppose its premises are true. It then follows that at least some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken. But now notice that the conclusion says more than that. It says that the God of the Bible is imaginary. How does that follow from the premises? To reach that conclusion, we need an additional premise—something like this:

?Premise 3: If some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken, then the God of the Bible is imaginary.Now it’s worth pointing out that the author of proof #1 doesn’t even discuss anything like Premise 3. It appears to be a background assumption. But for the proof to succeed, Premise 3, or something like it, needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise, the argument is logically invalid: the conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises.

My sense is that the vast majority of people would find Premise 3 implausible. After all, it seems perfectly possible for a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being described by the Bible to be real whether or not the Bible itself makes mistakes. So, Premise 3 is questionable (to say the least).

Someone might reply that perhaps “the God of the Bible” just means “the God that would exist if the entire Bible were true.” In that case, Premise 3 would be axiomatic. However, then the conclusion would be compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being. And certainly any argument that’s compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being is not an argument that God is imaginary.

So, if proof #1 is indeed an argument that God is imaginary, then it relies on a dubious premise; therefore, proof #1 fails to establish its conclusion. It seems, then, that reflective truth-seekers wouldn’t be moved by it.

We could stop here. The proof fails to establish what it claims to establish.

But the proof fails in more ways than one. According to this proof, the Bible’s statements on prayer imply that God would cure all of cancer on account of our prayers. But the proof fails to rule out (or even consider) the following possibility: background conditions on prayer are implicit in the text.

Consider that according to Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” He goes on: “not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).

And elsewhere, he says, “This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven… your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10).

It appears that Jesus thinks prayers must be possible to answer (so, no asking for square circles). And prayers must accord with God’s will.

Why, then, does Jesus say that “everyone who asks receives”? A standard answer, which proof #1 fails to address, is that background conditions on prayer are implicit and would have been understood by his audience. Indeed, that’s exactly what Jesus’ earliest followers thought: the Johanine text says that we know that we have what we ask for if we ask according to his will (John 5:14-15).

Now it certainly does seem good for all cancer to be cured. But the crucial question is this: could God instantly cure all cancer without thereby forfeiting a higher good? That’s a difficult question, and proof #1 doesn’t even attempt to answer it.

For all that proof #1 says, it may be that our fighting against cancer with mental and physical energy forges courage, compassion, and unique and special relationships between everlasting beings. What if some cancer allows us to become heroes in loving others? More generally, what if a finite stage of suffering can act as a means to certain everlasting bonds of love that far outweigh that suffering?

These are admittedly complex and difficult questions, with many books and articles devoted to them. So, if someone claims to prove that suffering cannot act as a means to outweighing goods, he better have a carefully spelled out argument to back that up; otherwise, reflective truth-seekers won’t be moved. Proof #1 offers us nothing of the sort; therefore, it fails in to establish its premises.

A Real God isn’t a Magical God

Jesus compares faith to a seed, not a magical wand. Seeds grow with time to produce fruit. There’s a process. And some methods of cultivation are more effective than others.

Truth is often complicated. Therefore, when a perfect being speaks truth, this being should sometimes speak about complex matters. What he says should sometimes baffle the simple-minded, while being discernible to the wise.

The scientific studies we have on prayer are actually compatible with a “realistic” interpretation of the biblical statements on prayer (contrary to what GII says). The only catch is this: some types of prayers appear to be more effective than others. The least effective ones seem to be prepackaged, one time prayers, from a distance for people one doesn’t know or care much about. A famous 2006 study indicates this. But when people pray fervently for people they care about, then the statistics change: such prayers have a statistical effect. Truth-seekers may wish to investigate studies referenced here and here.

Proof #1 is too simple. Its view of God is too simple. Its interpretation of Jesus’ statements is too simple. In a nutshell: it fails to address the possibility that a perfect, rational being might reveal complex layers of truth that truth-seekers may grow in their understanding of.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

It's funny you would post that. The first part of what you posted is actually a very good refutation to the wild claims that this website has been making about Got not existing, based on premises that lead to conclusions that have nothing to do with them. Fallacies.I said that myself a while ago, on this post:

I'm guessing all people answering this thread believe God to be imaginary. I have a different view.Let me just say the 50 reasons why you believe God doesn't exist are wrong. Are you familiar with Fallacies? If you look it up in the dictionary, you'll find:1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.2. a misleading or unsound argument.3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.5. Obsolete.

You can find more info at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/This is what was used to "proove" that God does not exist. For instance, Proof #1 (Try Praying): The author suggests that God does not exist simply because He does not answer our prayers.

"The fact is, God does not answer prayers. The reason why God does not answer your prayers is simple: God is imaginary."

God does not answer our prayers (A)--->God does not exist (B)

This is a fallacy. In fact, one could find more than one fallacy. One of the fallacies used, and the most obvious, is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc also known as False Cause. This consists of concluding that God does not exist (B) simply because A happened before (God does not answer our prayers).

The same happens 49 more times, with different fallacies. If you read a little about fallacies and re-read the 50 "prooves", you'll recognize a few.

I believe that God is not Imaginary

Where does that fail? Is it not true that all of the reasons presented to try to prove that God does not exist are not logically consistent? That they lack more premises? That those reasons jump from one premise to a conclusion that is impossible to logically conclude, that "God is Imaginary"?

Since the beginning of religious belief, neither side has ever "won" the argument. Know why? Because there isn't any hard, irrefutable evidence in either direction. All you have on your side is baseless claims of ancient man, and all we have on our side is the objective world that surrounds us that we live in every day.

So what it boils down to is reasonable doubt. The 50 arguments present a very solid case against God in just about every way. You can say.. "well, proof such and such doesn't necessarily mean God isn't real", and we will say "of course proof such and such doesn't prove with 100% certainty that God isn't real, but it's a big piece of evidence against God." This happens over and over again. And Christians will invariably say exactly what you are saying; that none of it is rock solid proof. You're right. Of course it's not rock solid proof. If it were, we would all be atheists.

But here's the thing Angus. Christians don't have proof either. All they have are claims from a really old book. And when you hold those claims up to reality, you have to ask yourself in all seriousness... are the claims in this book more likely TRUE or FALSE. The first place you have to start is by reading the bible.... (FYI, this is why atheists know more about the bible than Christians. Because we want to know if the claims make sense for ourselves)

Genesis

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Alright, this is a claim. Is this more likely true or false? Well, what do we know? Science tells us that the universe started about 14 billion years ago in an event termed "The Big Bang". Some 10 billion years later, our earth formed and cooled. Is that consistent with the idea presented in Genesis? Not really. What evidence do we have of this "God" being? Zero. What evidence do we have of "The heavens". Zero. We know there's a universe, but we don't really know what "the heavens" means. Earth, yes, at some point was created, but it certainly wasn't here at the same time as TBB, which is what this insinuates. So already, your side is off to a bad start. Still not 100% proven wrong, but not a good start. If you keep reading the bible, it just gets worse and worse over time. From the lunacy of the leprosy cures, to the flat earth tower of babel story, to the unsubstantiated miracle claims, to the genetic effects of fence posts, to the resurrection of a no name Jewish apocalyptic preacher, it's just not reasonable to believe in any of it without much more evidence than what we have to go on.

I would agree with you for sure that no single argument is the key to the story. Not yet anyway. This is because Christians, (and all the other religions) throughout the centuries, have found places to hide God in the gaps of our knowledge. In earlier times, there were a lot more gaps so it was much easier to buy what religion was selling. But now we have less gaps. The more we learn, the further God gets pushed away. Christians may be able to make up whatever they want about an invisible, all powerful God and it's almost impossible to argue with it. But you can't prove it. That's the paradox. On one hand, Christians can come up with a solution for anything we say, but on the other hand, they can't prove a single word of it. The fact remains, however, that this world operates objectively like there is no God. God is not a useful explanation for anything now. Again, that's not rock solid proof against God, but it's another massive strike against Him. If this were baseball, God would have been out a long time ago.

Beyond any reasonable doubt at all, the Christian God is fake. Bank on it.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Come on man. what are you banking on? That we'll either lie in the dirt for eternity or Tom cruise will save us from the grave? The proof is right in front of you but if you refuse to hear it or see it you wont.

Test it out. Ask god to reach out to you and he will. No shit.

I've got proof God is our true father and we are his spoiled rotten kids that want their fucking green popsickle right fucking now.

People have really been to heaven you know. It's not some crazy mythical place we imagined. There's details and a parking spot reserved for you if you let go of the notion that we are capable of understanding everything that's ever happened or ever will.

He may not fit the "God" mold that we want...Gimme a big house, nice car, chick with huge tits, lots of money, everythings awesome...but he's the dad that says it's gonna be tough but when it's done(trust me this wont take long) I'm gonna give you that stuff times a million. You wont want that shit on earth.

The physical presence of your alleged god in a crowd of people of different faiths and none, and the unambiguous restoration of both lower limbs (with full restoration of neurological function, confirmed by a medical EMG laboratory) to a double amputee... Live, on television.

which kind would spark your interest? I'm guessing visual since seeing is beleiving. I mean...everything I saw trippin on acid must have really been there.

Here I am again, puff! Your devoted fan. You can't escape me, bro, we're like star crossed sailors, only your ship started to sink, so I pulled you onto mine but then you sort of fell on me funny and it was awkward at first but then we got to talking and you're really not such a bad dude, bro, so then the night ended up a little weird, but it was all so mellow at the end that it couldn't have been wrong.

It's kind of cool, bro, that you can use answered AND unanswered prayer as proof of God's existence! That is, like, hella slick, dog, the BIG MAN HAS THE ANSWERS and God can't lose. I'm seriously tripping over this, it's like I lost so much of my mind that the only thing I've got going for me now is that I can't remember how many times I accidentally flush my prescription medicine down the toilet.

Logged

You take an interest in justice, holding particular fascination for ORCHESTRATING THE DEMISE OF THE WICKED.

Come on man. what are you banking on? That we'll either lie in the dirt for eternity or Tom cruise will save us from the grave? The proof is right in front of you but if you refuse to hear it or see it you wont.

No, you're wrong. It's not. In fact, there is no evidence at all. It's you who've been fooled.

I would like to hear how you respond to the logic in the post I wrote however. Do you feel the logic is flawed? What parts do you disagree with?

I've got proof God is our true father and we are his spoiled rotten kids that want their fucking green popsickle right fucking now.

I'm not asking for a Popsicle from my father. I'm a grown up now. I make my own way.

But see, that's what all you Christians think. You think we're just spoiled jerks who want all sorts of shit from God, and since we don't get it, we choose not to believe in him. You can't possibly fathom that we just find no evidence to think God is real, but that's the fucking truth. I don't want any fucking popsickle. I'm not asking God for anything. I don't need his help, because I do just fine on my own. The atheists aren't the ones thanking God for everything. We aren't the ones kissing our fingers and pointing to the sky every time we hit a home run, or score a touchdown. We aren't the ones saying "thank the lord" in our rap songs for all the popsicles God gave to His spoiled rotten kids.

I'm not mad at God either. I have a good life. But that doesn't change the fact that my intellectually curious brain wants to know if God is real. And from the evidence (or severe lack-there-of), I can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt, that God is fake.

People have really been to heaven you know. It's not some crazy mythical place we imagined.

Sure they have puffdaddy. Suuuuure they have. I'm sure it's not just a made up place that people created because they are afraid of dying...

/gently pats him on the head.

Will someone please get this guy his pills?

In all seriousness, anyone who told you that was lying. Jesus man, stop drinking the cool aid and start using your head. Notorious B.I.G. isn't in heaven looking down on us from a supersized sky box. There is no such thing as heaven.

cool, edgy...no even the self proclaimed "strongest christians" are sinners the same as anyone and has doubts about God like anyone.

There's no such thing as "sin". Sin is defined as crimes against God. There is no God, there is no sin. People can do good and bad things, but those things are judged as good or bad by the observer. Nothing more.

Those doubts you talk about? We call that reasoning. It's what sane people experience when considering all the reasons we have to think God's existence is just a big sham. The courageous people follow where those doubts lead, while the devout ignore them. You likely think the opposite is true, but examine it puff. Is it more or less courageous to follow evidence no matter where it may lead, or to ignore it and fall back on what feels comfortable?

What pulls Christians back in from those doubts they have? Faith. Not evidence, not proof, not logic... faith. Good ol' "believe just because you've been told it's "good" to believe" faith. No thanks. I'm not that stupid. You can be, but don't be upset when we're pointing and laughing at you.

which kind would spark your interest? I'm guessing visual since seeing is beleiving. I mean...everything I saw trippin on acid must have really been there.

Visual would be fine. Answered prayer would be fine. The other 4 are shit. If you are going to provide visual evidence, then it must be first hand, not what you tell us. You must ask God to reveal himself visually and unambiguously (not with Jesus' image on a piece of toast or some stupid shit like that) in some way to all of us. That would be good. And if you want to provide answered prayer evidence, then it must be an unambiguous example that the Christian God himself is responsible for something, and there is no other possibility of natural consequences playing themselves out.

Get to work.

Oh, and let me try your suggestion right now...

God, show me your greatness, I humbly request it of thee. I am an open mind and heart waiting to be filled with your love. Show me that you are real and you will forever have a most devout follower. Please, God, show me your presence!

There I did it. How long do I have to wait now? 'cause I don't feel nuttin' dog.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Those two sites, allegedly authored by Marshall Brain of How Stuff Works fame, are riddled with basic errors of theology.

Theology, as I understand it, starts with the premise that the (always) limited data set of God observations is true and then tries to extrapolate further truth from that.

Questioning the validity of the data set is not a part of theology, except apparently in the Josiah Ministry writer's definition. For example:

Quote

My sense is that the vast majority of people would find {that the Bible is errant} is implausible. After all, it seems perfectly possible for a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being described by the Bible to be real whether or not the Bible itself makes mistakes. So, Premise 3 is questionable (to say the least).

Okay, back to definitions. Are there believers who think that in a warm, fuzzy way the Bible is somehow generally, broadly sort of quasi true? Yes, such people are called Deists (even if they don't label themselves). Thomas Jefferson appears to have been one of them. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, too. John Adams was a Unitarian. Prince Charles has said that as King of England he wants to be known as the Defender of Faith, rather than Defender of the Faith. Dwight Eisenhower was raised as a Jehovah's Witness/Presbyterian/River Brethren(???) believer and said adding the "under God" clause to our national loyalty oath would strengthen us somehow.

Quote

Someone might reply that perhaps “the God of the Bible” just means “the God that would exist if the entire Bible were true.” In that case, Premise 3 would be axiomatic. However, then the conclusion would be compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being. And certainly any argument that’s compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being is not an argument that God is imaginary.

An "perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being" who doesn't do much of anything. And the writer dismisses all the times that the Bible makes extensive claims for the power of prayer as just little errors. Exaggerations, perhaps.

Quote

Consider that according to Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” He goes on: “not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).

Now that the writer has said the Bible has some little errors let's discuss how this quote can be attributed to Jesus.

Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane. 3 disciples stayed back on a path so he could be undisturbed in his vigil. From Matthew:

Quote

Mat 26:36 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, "Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder."

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me."

And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto "Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, "O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."

And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, "Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners."

So there were no witnesses to what Jesus said. If you're looking for errors, here's one -- that piece has the standard premise of Third Person Fiction. The narrator guides the reader to be somehow floating in space seeing things. We all read a lot of fiction so unless you're in a college course in literature (it was in my 103 course, for that matter) you don't think of it.

So to this writer the Bible errs when it claims vast powers for prayer but it's dead on accurate about "words" that no one witnessed in a scene that is staged like fiction.

Quote

Jesus compares faith to a seed, not a magical wand. Seeds grow with time to produce fruit. There’s a process. And some methods of cultivation are more effective than others.

Here's Matthew 12:20:

Quote

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

But in 2000 years no one has been able to do that. Tellingly, neither has Jesus.

I suppose the writer was confusing that with this:

Quote

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Except that's not about faith. It's the generally wise advice of Pay it Forward.

Quote

Truth is often complicated. Therefore, when a perfect being speaks truth, this being should sometimes speak about complex matters. What he says should sometimes baffle the simple-minded, while being discernible to the wise.

which kind would spark your interest? I'm guessing visual since seeing is beleiving. I mean...everything I saw trippin on acid must have really been there.

You point out one as unreliable, but if observed by many, it is an element of evidence. 2,4,5, and 6 are useless. And 3, only acceptable if unambiguous and objectively verified. You know, something like an Amputee being healed in modern times without the aid of modern medicine.

Just like the website is known to ask for.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

It's funny you would post that. The first part of what you posted is actually a very good refutation to the wild claims that this website has been making about Got not existing, based on premises that lead to conclusions that have nothing to do with them. Fallacies.I said that myself a while ago, on this post:

Where does that fail? Is it not true that all of the reasons presented to try to prove that God does not exist are not logically consistent? That they lack more premises? That those reasons jump from one premise to a conclusion that is impossible to logically conclude, that "God is Imaginary"?

Because first of all, the whole of your argument's foundation is an appeal to ignorance. That's where it fails. Then every apologist, Josiah included, goes on for special pleading(the God of Christendom), it fails in that way too. Everything else is trying to obsfucate that foundation.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

which kind would spark your interest? I'm guessing visual since seeing is beleiving. I mean...everything I saw trippin on acid must have really been there.

You point out one as unreliable, but if observed by many, it is an element of evidence. 2,4,5, and 6 are useless. And 3, only acceptable if unambiguous and objectively verified. You know, something like an Amputee being healed in modern times without the aid of modern medicine.

Just like the website is known to ask for.

the courts of law use eye witness testimony to sentence people to death. even if it is jsut one good eye witness, it might be enough. depends on the jury.

when Jesus rose from the dead, multitudes saw Him. 100's of people in crowds all together interacted with him. Thomas put his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hand.

the courts of law use eye witness testimony to sentence people to death. even if it is jsut one good eye witness, it might be enough. depends on the jury.

Not true. If you think it is, I’d love to see one case that ever did this. It is backed up by evidence. Where is yours?

Quote

when Jesus rose from the dead, multitudes saw Him. 100's of people in crowds all together interacted with him. Thomas put his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hand.

No, that’s what the bible tells you. Again, there is no external corroborating evidence for any of this. But in that you mention Thomas, I’ll ask you a question. Why no “thomas” moments for me? Why was it when I was losing my faith, and was praying to this god, I was not helped in my doubt?

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB